Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on denial of disability income benefits under a public-sector plan.

• Banerjee filed a civil claim, prompting debate over jurisdiction: civil court vs. judicial review or arbitration.

• The government argued the DIP Council was a statutory decision-maker subject to judicial review.

• Court found the DIP Council lacked adjudicative powers to be reviewed administratively.

• Collective agreement was ruled not to bar civil litigation for benefit claims.

• Court of Appeal upheld that the matter belongs in civil court as a contractual dispute.

Facts and procedural background

In Government of Saskatchewan v. Banerjee, 2025 SKCA 23, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal addressed a jurisdictional dispute involving disability benefits claimed by Dianne Banerjee, a former employee of SaskTel and a member of Unifor. After being denied benefits under the Disability Income Plan (DIP), Banerjee commenced a civil lawsuit in the Court of King’s Bench. The Government of Saskatchewan moved to strike the claim, asserting that the proper route was either judicial review of the DIP Council’s denial or grievance arbitration under the collective agreement.

The Disability Income Plan was created by the government in 1973, later administered by a Crown corporation, and since 2020 by a non-Crown entity named Plannera. Although contributions were negotiated through collective agreements, including the one between Unifor and SaskTel, the benefits were funded through the plan’s assets, not directly by employers. The government argued that the DIP Council functioned as an administrative tribunal or decision-maker, making its decisions subject to judicial review under The King's Bench Rules.

Chambers judge’s decision

Justice McMurtry of the Court of King’s Bench rejected the government’s application. He concluded that the DIP Council was not a statutory tribunal exercising public decision-making power, but instead operated within a benefits plan governed by contract and internal policy. Since there was no legislation granting the Council binding decision-making authority over individuals, the court ruled it was not subject to judicial review. Additionally, the chambers judge found that the collective agreement did not displace Ms. Banerjee’s right to pursue a civil claim for the denial of benefits. He emphasized that her claim was not based on breach of the collective agreement but on entitlement under the benefit plan itself.

Court of Appeal decision

The Government of Saskatchewan appealed, maintaining that judicial review or grievance arbitration was the exclusive path. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Justice Barrington-Foote, writing for the court, affirmed that the DIP Council’s function was administrative in a non-binding sense—it did not derive its authority from legislation or possess coercive powers. It acted essentially as an advisory or oversight body without the hallmarks of a tribunal whose decisions carry legal force. As a result, judicial review was not the proper legal avenue. The court also confirmed that Banerjee’s claim was not within the exclusive purview of labour arbitration. It arose from her personal entitlement under a plan in which she had a vested interest, and her union’s collective agreement did not eliminate the right to sue over those benefits in civil court.

Conclusion

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld the right of Dianne Banerjee to pursue her claim in civil court. It confirmed that the Disability Income Plan was not governed by a statutory tribunal and that judicial review was not the correct forum. The decision clarifies the legal framework for public employees seeking disability benefits and reaffirms that such disputes, when rooted in private entitlements rather than collective agreements or administrative law, are properly addressed through civil litigation. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the Government of Saskatchewan.